Effect of Time-Dose-Matched Virtual Reality Therapy on Upper Limb Dysfunction in Patients Poststroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yi Li,Jiashang Huang,Xiaohong Li,Jia Qiao,Xin Huang,Lining Yang,Heping Yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.09.003
IF: 4.06
2021-10-01
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Abstract:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and acceptability of virtual reality (VR) with time-dose-matched conventional therapy (CT) in patients post-stroke with upper limb dysfunction.Data SourcesCochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and ProQuest were systematically searched up to 24 May 2021.Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VR with time-dose-matched CT in patients post-stroke with upper limb dysfunction were included.Data ExtractionThe extracted data included efficacy (mean change in Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation scores), acceptability (dropouts for all reasons), adverse events and characteristics of the included studies. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias.Data Synthesis31 RCTs were included. VR was superior to time-dose-matched CT in terms of ICF-WHO Structure/Function, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.35, but not Activity and Participation. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that virtual environment was superior to CT in Structure/Function (SMD=0.38) and Activity (SMD=0.27), while there were no significant differences between commercial gaming and CT in any ICF-WHO domain. VR mixed with CT was more effective than time-dose-matched CT in Structure/Function (SMD=0.56), while VR only was not significantly different from CT. There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events and dropout rates between VR and CT.ConclusionsThe results suggest that VR is superior to time-dose-matched CT in terms of recovery of upper extremity motor function, especially when virtual environment is used, or VR is mixed with CT. However, VR (VR only or mixed with CT) does not improve patients' daily activity performance and participation compared with CT. Overall, VR appears to be safe and acceptable as CT. Large-scale definitive trials are needed to verify or refute these findings.
rehabilitation,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?